Author Topic: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat (Read 268634 times)

Truth is Eternal · « **Reply #90 on:** January 10, 2017, 04:31:07 PM »

Everybody, repeat after me.

This is a CIRCLE.

This is a GLOBE.

Matto · « **Reply #91 on:** January 10, 2017, 04:47:35 PM »

I have a question for the flat earthers. I have been thinking about this and it still does not make sense to me. Flat earthers say that when ships or islands or mountains or anything else appears to sink below the horizon it is only an illusion and if you look with a telescope the object can be seen. But does it work the same way with the sun? When the sun seems to sink below the horizon is it also an illusion and if you look for the sun with a telescope, can you see the sun like they say you can see the boats and islands and mountains when they sink below the horizon?

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #92 on:** January 10, 2017, 06:25:44 PM »

These FlatTards use deceit to claim the Bible teaches the "earth is flat." The Bible never mentions the word "flat" to describe shape of the earth.

The word "flat" is a very simple word and concept to describe an object. Surely, the word existed in the Hebrew and Koine Greek language, so why didn't the Bible writers use it to describe the shape of the earth?

These FlatTards are saying Our Lady of La Salette is wrong. She can't be wrong.

Regarding Our Lady's warning about earthquakes to come, she say's "the EARTH's GLOBE will have convulsions and earthquakes." It makes absolutely no sense for FlatTards to refer to the sky (which is a "globe" according to them) as having earthquakes when, according to their "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively.

In other words, these FlatTards are saying there will be earthquakes in the sky according to Our Lady. This is preposterous.

Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".

These FlatTards are deceitful and they lack reading comprehension problem. They lack understanding of what Our Lady is stating, and they willfully reject it after it's explained to them.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #93 on:** January 10, 2017, 06:41:32 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I have a question for the flat earthers. I have been thinking about this and it still does not make sense to me. Flat earthers say that when ships or islands or mountains or anything else appears to sink below the horizon it is only an illusion and if you look with a telescope the object can be seen. But does it work the same way with the sun? When the sun seems to sink below the horizon is it also an illusion and if you look for the sun with a telescope, can you see the sun like they say you can see the boats and islands and mountains when they sink below the horizon?

Don't expect a straight answer from them. They never give one, rather they'll post a link to a video and tell you to watch it or they'll post a borderline facetious illustration of a false premise in which they base their arguments. I've wondered if there is some demonic element with this movement. The people say the same things and they're zealous for it.

It's a pattern with these people. I've, also, noticed a lot of them are women, which isn't really a surprise because they're more prone to emotional attachments to falsehoods. This might be indicative of the their personal or home life being unfulfilling in some way, therefore, they compensate by emotionally investing into a sensational theory. This sensational theory is their "husband" or "family". They defend the sensational like they'd (suppose to) defend their child's or husband's character.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #94 on:** January 10, 2017, 08:15:14 PM »

A jet flying westward during daytime at say the 25th parallel north of the equator stays in the same position relative to the sun above as if the sun were not moving, whereas a jet flying eastward changes position with respect to the sun above twice as fast such that the sun appears to cross the sky at double speed.

The same pilot taking off in a jet toward the sunset can watch the sun hover at the horizon without setting as long as the jet continues to fly west. Only when the jet turns north or south will it see the sun set below the horizon.

Furthermore, a jet at the 20th parallel or the 30th for example (north of the equator) has to continually adjust its course toward the north in order to fly westward with a constant compass bearing of west. However, at the equator, no adjustment is necessary and the jet can fly west without turning. South of the equator, the same jet must constantly turn south (left) in order to continue flying west, and the further south from the equator it is, the more it has to turn to keep a westward compass bearing.

mw2016 · « **Reply #95 on:** January 10, 2017, 09:46:33 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I have a question for the flat earthers. I have been thinking about this and it still does not make sense to me. Flat earthers say that when ships or islands or mountains or anything else appears to sink below the horizon it is only an illusion and if you look with a telescope the object can be seen. But does it work the same way with the sun? When the sun seems to sink below the horizon is it also an illusion and if you look for the sun with a telescope, can you see the sun like they say you can see the boats and islands and mountains when they sink below the horizon?

I can actually do this experiment in a similar fashion in my own home.

Example, when the sun has disappeared over the horizon from my backyard, I can immediately go upstairs to the second floor and look out the window and see the sun again for a moment.

So, additional height allows for a longer line of sight. A telescope is providing a longer line of sight, isn't it?

If you have a sufficient height to have a clear line of sight with no obstructions, this would be an easy experiment to perform on a west-facing beach. Got a telescope??

mw2016 · « **Reply #96 on:** January 10, 2017, 09:49:37 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

A jet flying westward during daytime at say the 25th parallel north of the equator stays in the same position relative to the sun above as if the sun were not moving, whereas a jet flying eastward changes position with respect to the sun above twice as fast such that the sun appears to cross the sky at double speed.

The same pilot taking off in a jet toward the sunset can watch the sun hover at the horizon without setting as long as the jet continues to fly west. Only when the jet turns north or south will it see the sun set below the horizon.

Furthermore, a jet at the 20th parallel or the 30th for example (north of the equator) has to continually adjust its course toward the north in order to fly westward with a constant compass bearing of west. However, at the equator, no adjustment is necessary and the jet can fly west without turning. South of the equator, the same jet must constantly turn south (left) in order to continue flying west, and the further south from the equator it is, the more it has to turn to keep a westward compass bearing.

Source?

Are you a pilot?

With no reference material, it is impossible to verify the truth of any of your above claims.

mw2016 · « **Reply #97 on:** January 10, 2017, 09:53:06 PM »

Quote from: Croix de Fer

I've, also, noticed a lot of them are women, which isn't really a surprise because they're more prone to emotional attachments to falsehoods. This might be indicative of the their personal or home life being unfulfilling in some way, therefore, they compensate by emotionally investing into a sensational theory.

Gosh, the stupid again...

By my count, the acknowledged FE'ers on this thread are TWO females (me & happenby) and at least THREE males (Truth is Eternal, Flat Earth Inquistor, and I forget the other one's name).

So much for your THEORY. I guess those "emotional men" must have an "unfulfilling home life" and it is making them acknowledge the truth of the Bible.

mw2016 · « **Reply #98 on:** January 10, 2017, 09:56:12 PM »

Quote from: Croix de Fer

The Bible never mentions the word "flat" to describe shape of the earth.

Why do you sidestep what the Bible actually says - that the earth is a CIRCLE or a COMPASS?

Answer the question.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #99 on:** January 10, 2017, 10:49:34 PM »

Quote from: mw2016

Quote from: Croix de Fer
I've, also, noticed a lot of them are women, which isn't really a surprise because they're more prone to emotional attachments to falsehoods. This might be indicative of the their personal or home life being unfulfilling in some way, therefore, they compensate by emotionally investing into a sensational theory.

Gosh, the stupid again...

By my count, the acknowledged FE'ers on this thread are TWO females (me & happenby) and at least THREE males (Truth is Eternal, Flat Earth Inquistor, and I forget the other one's name).

So much for your THEORY. I guess those "emotional men" must have an "unfulfilling home life" and it is making them acknowledge the truth of the Bible.

How sensational !!

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #100 on:** January 10, 2017, 10:57:49 PM »

Quote from: mw2016

Quote from: Croix de Fer
The Bible never mentions the word "flat" to describe shape of the earth.

Why do you sidestep what the Bible actually says - that the earth is a CIRCLE or a COMPASS?

Answer the question.

Look at you, FlatTard, demanding answers to questions after you never answered my questions, instead you posted links to frauds (pilots / submarine operators) filling a niche of the sensational to sell books and speeches.

Let us look up one of the synonyms to the word "circle". One synonym is "GLOBE", but nowhere is the word "flat" to be found.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/circle

You and the other FlatTards ignore the following that I stated because it exposes the fallacy of your positions:

Regarding Our Lady's warning about earthquakes to come, she say's "the EARTH's GLOBE will have convulsions and earthquakes." It makes absolutely no sense for FlatTards to refer to the sky (which is a "globe" according to them) as having earthquakes when, according to their "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively.

In other words, these FlatTards are saying there will be earthquakes in the sky according to Our Lady. This is preposterous.

Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".

You lose, again.

Truth is Eternal · « **Reply #101 on:** January 10, 2017, 11:45:06 PM »

Quote from: Croix de Fer

Quote from: mw2016
Quote from: Croix de Fer
The Bible never mentions the word "flat" to describe shape of the earth.

Why do you sidestep what the Bible actually says - that the earth is a CIRCLE or a COMPASS?

Answer the question.

Look at you, FlatTard, demanding answers to questions after you never answered my questions, instead you posted links to frauds (pilots / submarine operators) filling a niche of the sensational to sell books and speeches.

Let us look up one of the synonyms to the word "circle". One synonym is "GLOBE", but nowhere is the word "flat" to be found.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/circle

You and the other FlatTards ignore the following that I stated because it exposes the fallacy of your positions:

Regarding Our Lady's warning about earthquakes to come, she say's "the EARTH's GLOBE will have convulsions and earthquakes." It makes absolutely no sense for FlatTards to refer to the sky (which is a "globe" according to them) as having earthquakes when, according to their "flat earth" theory, these "half globes" represent the sky above the earth and the domain, which consists of water or dust, below the earth's land mass and navigable waters, respectively.

In other words, these FlatTards are saying there will be earthquakes in the sky according to Our Lady. This is preposterous.

Our Lady is referring to the earth that we can see and upon that we physically live. It will have convulsions and earthquakes. She calls this land mass "the earth's globe".

You lose, again.

A circle is not a globe.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #102 on:** January 10, 2017, 11:49:36 PM »

Quote

In the Northern Hemisphere, latitude is obtained by measuring the altitude of Polaris. At the Equator (0° of latitude) the North Star is on the horizon, making an angle or "altitude" of 0 degrees. Whereas at the North Pole (90° of latitude), Polaris is directly overhead making an angle or "altitude" of 90 degrees. Likewise, at 30°N the star is 30 degrees above the horizon, and so on. In other words, in the Northern Hemisphere, if you know your latitude, you can use that as an angle from the horizon to locate the North Star.

[Therefore, if you can find the North Star and measure the angle of its altitude above the north horizon, you can determine your latitude.]

To measure your latitude, point a stick at the North Star, then measure the angle the stick makes from a level horizon. Note, some compasses include an inclination gauge (not covered in this article) by which you can easily measure the angle.

http://www.summitpost.org/compass-basics-an-introduction-to-orientation-and-navigation/358187

Gasherbrum IV ----- very cold water in the mountains

FlatEarthInquisitor · « **Reply #103 on:** January 11, 2017, 04:55:58 AM »

Quote from: Matto

I have a question for the flat earthers. I have been thinking about this and it still does not make sense to me. Flat earthers say that when ships or islands or mountains or anything else appears to sink below the horizon it is only an illusion and if you look with a telescope the object can be seen. But does it work the same way with the sun? When the sun seems to sink below the horizon is it also an illusion and if you look for the sun with a telescope, can you see the sun like they say you can see the boats and islands and mountains when they sink below the horizon?

The seeing of objects with a telescope from the ground is just due to the limit of our vision. We don't say they appear to go below the horizon.
This video:

shows what happens. The the mast of the boat remains at the same level. Which would not happen on a round earth. It would descend. But when you see it with your own eyes from a distance, you might think it does.

As for the sun, since it is high up, there are other factors to consider, but the bottom half goes out because of the law of perspective. Check out the pictures in this video http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t87-loi-du-perspective-explique
to see what I am talking about. Basically, it seems that the bottom half of the sun goes beyond your view until all of it goes below the perspective line.

All this of course seems ridiculous if you are not open the the flat earth, but it is totally reasonable when you understand that there is not curvature on the earth.

cassini · « **Reply #104 on:** January 11, 2017, 05:03:16 AM »

Quote from: mw2016

Quote from: Croix de Fer
What scientific evidence? Please cite the empirical, peer-reviewed journal and study proving the "earth is flat."

The Michelson-Morley Experiment, for starters.

I see nobody has piocked up on this 'proof.' Perhaps you could demonstrate mw2016.

Be careful though, for:

‘Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are often held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common of these concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief however, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists [should] prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to those for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.’ --- Satoshi Kanazawa’s The Scientific Fundamentalist, published on Nov. 16, 2008.